Hesitancy and reactogenicity to mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines-Early experience with vaccine rollout in a multi-site healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Hesitancy and incomplete vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains an obstacle to achieving herd immunity. Because of fear of vaccine reactions, patients with medical and allergic co-morbidities express heightened hesitancy. Limited information is available to guide these patients. We sought to identify factors associated with mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines hesitancy and reactogenicity. METHODS: We surveyed employees of a multi-site health system in central Pennsylvania who were offered the COVID-19 vaccine (N = 18,740) inquiring about their experience with the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based vaccines. The survey was administered online using the REDCap platform. We used multivariable regression analysis to determine whether a particular factor(s) (e.g., demographics, selected co-morbid allergic and medical conditions, vaccine brand, and prior COVID-19) were associated with vaccine reactogenicity including the occurrence and severity of local and systemic reactions. We also explored factors and reasons associated with vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: Of the 5709 who completed the survey (response rate, 30.4%), 369 (6.5%) did not receive the vaccine. Black race and allergy to other vaccines were associated with vaccine hesitancy. Reaction intensity following the first vaccine dose and allergic co-morbidities were associated with incomplete vaccination. Older individuals (>60 years) experienced less reactogenicity. Females had higher odds of local and systemic reactions and reported more severe reactions. Asians reported more severe reactions. As compared to Pfizer-BioNTech, the Moderna vaccine was associated with higher odds of vaccine reactions of higher severity. Prior COVID-19 resulted in more severe reactions following the first dose, but less severe reactions following the second dose. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted campaigns to enhance vaccination acceptance should focus on Black individuals, females, and those with allergic co-morbidities. Prior COVID-19 caused more severe reactions after the first but not the second vaccine dose. Moderna vaccine caused more vaccine reactions. Lessons learned from the early rollout of COVID-19 vaccine may serve to inform future novel vaccine experiences.

A survey of US hospitals' criteria for the allocation of remdesivir to treat COVID-19.

PURPOSE: To determine how hospitals across the United States determined allocation criteria for remdesivir, approved in May 2020 for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) through an emergency use authorization, while maintaining fair and ethical distribution when patient needs exceeded supply. METHODS: A electronic survey inquiring as to how institutions determined remdesivir allocation was developed. On June 17, 2020, an invitation with a link to the survey was posted on the Vizient Pharmacy Network Community pages and via email to the American College of Clinical Pharmacy's Infectious Disease Practice and Research Network listserver. RESULTS: 66 institutions representing 28 states responded to the survey. The results showed that 98% of surveyed institutions used a multidisciplinary team to develop remdesivir allocation criteria. A majority of those teams included clinical pharmacists (indicated by 97% of respondents), adult infectious diseases physicians (94%), and/or adult intensivists (69%). Many teams included adult hospitalists (49.2%) and/or ethicists (35.4%). Of the surveyed institutions, 59% indicated that all patients with COVID-19 were evaluated for treatment, and 50% delegated initial patient identification for potential remdesivir use to treating physicians. Prioritization of remdesivir allocation was often determined on a "first come, first served" basis (47% of respondents), according to a patient's respiratory status (28.8%) and/or clinical course (24.2%), and/or by random lottery (22.7%). Laboratory parameters (10.6%), comorbidities (4.5%), and essential worker status (4.5%) were rarely included in allocation criteria; no respondents reported consideration of socioeconomic disadvantage or use of a validated scoring system. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the inconsistencies of US medical centers' methods for allocating a limited pharmacotherapy resource that required rapid, fair, ethical and equitable distribution. The medical community, with citizen participation, needs to develop systems to continuously reevaluate criteria for treatment allocation as additional guidance and data emerge.